10:0172(36)CA - Office of Program Operations, Field Operations, SSA, San Francisco Region and AFGE, Council of SS District Office Locals, San Francisco Region -- 1982 FLRAdec CA



[ v10 p172 ]
10:0172(36)CA
The decision of the Authority follows:


 10 FLRA No. 36
 
 OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS
 FIELD OPERATIONS
 SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
 SAN FRANCISCO REGION
 Respondent
 
 and
 
 AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT
 EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, COUNCIL OF SOCIAL
 SECURITY DISTRICT OFFICE LOCALS,
 SAN FRANCISCO REGION
 Charging Party
 
                                            Case No. 8-CA-382
 
                            DECISION AND ORDER
 
    THIS MATTER IS BEFORE THE AUTHORITY PURSUANT TO THE REGIONAL
 DIRECTOR'S "ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS
 AUTHORITY" IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2429.1(A) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES
 AND REGULATIONS.
 
    UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE ENTIRE RECORD IN THIS CASE, INCLUDING THE
 PARTIES' STIPULATION OF FACTS, ACCOMPANYING EXHIBITS AND BRIEFS
 SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS:
 
    THE COMPLAINT HEREIN ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION
 7116(A)(1), (5) AND (8) /1/ OF THE FEDERAL SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT
 RELATIONS STATUTE (THE STATUTE) BY CONDUCTING FORMAL DISCUSSIONS ON
 DECEMBER 12, 1979 AND JANUARY 17, 1980, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION
 7114(A)(2)(A) /2/ WITH A UNIT EMPLOYEE WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT SUCH DISCUSSION.  THE RESPONDENT ADMITS
 IT ACTED AS ALLEGED, BUT TAKES THE POSITION THAT IT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO
 AFFORD THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS BECAUSE
 THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED A WAIVER OF THE
 UNION'S RIGHT TO BE AN "OBSERVER" UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
 
    THE UNDISPUTED FACTS AS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES ARE AS FOLLOWS:
 
    ON AUGUST 9, 1972, THE CHARGING PARTY WAS CERTIFIED AS THE EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE OF CERTAIN EMPLOYEES IN REGION IX (SAN FRANCISCO REGION)
 UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, FIELD
 OPERATIONS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH,
 EDUCATION AND WELFARE (THE PREDECESSOR TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
 HUMAN SERVICES).  ON AUGUST 30, 1979, THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO (THE UNION), WAS CERTIFIED AS THE
 EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE OF A NATIONAL CONSOLIDATED UNIT CONSISTING OF,
 AMONG OTHERS, THE UNIT CERTIFIED IN 1972 AT THE RESPONDENT'S FACILITIES.
  NO NATIONAL COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT AS YET EXISTS BETWEEN THE
 UNION AND THE RESPONDENT, AND THEREFORE AS STIPULATED BY THE PARTIES IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2422.2(H)(8) OF THE AUTHORITY'S RULES AND
 REGULATIONS, THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A PRE-CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT
 NEGOTIATED IN 1977 BETWEEN THE RESPONDENT AND THE CHARGING PARTY REMAIN
 IN EFFECT.  THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT CONTAINS THREE PROVISIONS
 CONCERNING THE CONDUCT OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCESS:
 
    ARTICLE 7, SECTION H.  ANY EMPLOYEE SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT
 MATTERS OF CONCERN,
 
    INCLUDING GRIEVANCES, TO MANAGEMENT, WITH OR WITHOUT THE PRESENCE OF
 A UNION REPRESENTATIVE OR
 
    OBSERVER.  WHENEVER AN EMPLOYEE DESIRES TO PROCEED WITHOUT A
 REPRESENTATIVE, HE SHALL STATE
 
    HIS GRIEVANCE IN WRITING, WITH A COPY TO THE DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE
 OF THE COUNCIL.
 
    ARTICLE 25, SECTION E.  ANY EMPLOYEE OR GROUP OF EMPLOYEES IN THE
 UNIT MAY PRESENT SUCH
 
    GRIEVANCES TO THE REGION AND HAVE THEM ADJUSTED WITHOUT THE
 INTERVENTION OF THE UNION, AS LONG
 
    AS ADJUSTMENT IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT AND
 THE UNION HAS BEEN GIVEN
 
    OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE ADJUSTMENT.  AN EMPLOYEE MAY BE
 REPRESENTED BY A THIRD PARTY
 
    ONLY WITH THE WRITTEN PERMISSION OF THE UNION.
 
    ARTICLE 25, SECTION G.  REPRESENTATION:  WHEN CHOSEN REPRESENTATIVE,
 THE UNION AGREES TO
 
    ASSIGN A UNION REPRESENTATIVE OF APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION TO HANDLE
 THE GRIEVANCE DURING STEPS
 
    1 AND 2 OF THIS PROCEDURE.  TOP ELECTED UNION OFFICIALS SHALL NOT
 ORDINARILY BECOME INVOLVED
 
    IN GRIEVANCES DURING STEPS 1 AND 2.  WHEN THERE IS A UNION
 REPRESENTATIVE, HE SHALL RECEIVE
 
    COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE.
 
    ON OR ABOUT NOVEMBER 7, 1979, CAROLINE KNAUSS, A UNIT EMPLOYEE AT
 RESPONDENT'S FACILITY, FILED A WRITTEN GRIEVANCE PURSUANT TO THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT ALLEGING THAT HER ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION DID
 NOT ACCURATELY REFLECT HER PERFORMANCE DURING THE PAST APPRAISAL PERIOD,
 AND REQUESTED THAT FIVE SPECIFIC ITEMS BE RAISED FROM A "D" RATING TO AN
 "E" RATING.  KNAUSS INDICATED "SELF" AS HER REPRESENTATIVE ON THE
 GRIEVANCE FORMS.  GAIL MANN, KNAUSS' FIRST LINE SUPERVISOR, REVIEWED THE
 GRIEVANCE AT THE FIRST STEP OF THE THREE-STEP GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE, AND
 RAISED KNAUSS' RATING ON ONE ITEM BUT DENIED THE RELIEF REQUESTED ON THE
 OTHER FOUR.  THERE WAS NO MEETING BETWEEN MANN AND KNAUSS AT THE FIRST
 STEP OF THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 
    KNAUSS THEN PROCESSED HER GRIEVANCE TO THE SECOND STEP TO DISTRICT
 MANAGER DELORES LOGAN, THE DECIDING OFFICIAL, ON DECEMBER 3, 1979.  ON
 OR ABOUT DECEMBER 12, 1979, KNAUSS AND LOGAN MET TO DISCUSS THE
 GRIEVANCE AT THE SECOND STEP.  AT THE MEETING, WHICH WAS ARRANGED BY
 LOGAN, THE GRIEVANT MADE AN ORAL PRESENTATION, A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF
 WHICH WAS MADE.  ON DECEMBER 17, 1979, LOGAN SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REPLY
 TO KNAUSS DENYING THE RELIEF REQUESTED, ENCLOSING THE SUMMARY OF THE
 ORAL PRESENTATION.
 
    ON OR ABOUT DECEMBER 31, 1979, KNAUSS SUBMITTED HER GRIEVANCE TO
 WILLIAM YAMAMOTO, THE THIRD STEP DECIDING OFFICIAL AND THE AREA DIRECTOR
 FOR RESPONDENT'S LOS ANGELES WEST AREA.  ARTICLE 25, SECTION H, STEP 3,
 PROVIDES THAT THE AREA DIRECTOR WILL ARRANGE FOR EITHER A CONFERENCE
 WITH THE EMPLOYEE AND THE REPRESENTATIVE AT WHICH TIME AN ORAL
 PRESENTATION OF THE GRIEVANCE CAN BE MADE, OR FOR A FACTFINDER IN LIEU
 OF THE CONFERENCE.  YAMAMOTO DESIGNATED SUSAN ARMINGTON, A MANAGEMENT
 INTERN, TO ACT IN THE CAPACITY OF A FACTFINDER.  A MEETING WAS HELD
 BETWEEN ARMINGTON AND KNAUSS ON JANUARY 17, 1980, TO DISCUSS THE
 PERFORMANCE RATINGS ON ITEMS 1 AND 9.  ARMINGTON PREPARED A WRITTEN
 SUMMARY OF THE CONVERSATION.  ON OR ABOUT JANUARY 17, 1980, THE UNION
 RECEIVED WRITTEN NOTIFICATION FROM THE RESPONDENT BY A LETTER DATED
 JANUARY 15, 1980, THAT KNAUSS HAD FILED A THIRD STEP GRIEVANCE.  ON OR
 ABOUT JANUARY 25, 1980, ARMINGTON SUBMITTED HER FACTFINDING REPORT,
 INCLUDING THE SUMMARY OF HER JANUARY 17, 1980, MEETING WITH KNAUSS, AND
 RECOMMENDED THAT THE RELIEF REQUESTED BE DENIED.  ON OR ABOUT FEBRUARY
 4, 1980, YAMAMOTO SUBMITTED A WRITTEN REPLY DENYING RELIEF.  EXCEPT FOR
 THE LETTER RECEIVED JANUARY 17, THE UNION HAD NO NOTIFICATION OR
 CORRESPONDENCE AS TO THE SECOND AND THIRD STEP GRIEVANCE MEETINGS FROM
 THE RESPONDENT OR KNAUSS, NOR WAS IT REPRESENTED AT THE MEETINGS.
 
    IT IS THE POSITION OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL AND CHARGING PARTY THAT THE
 DECEMBER 12, 1979, AND JANUARY 17, 1980, GRIEVANCE MEETINGS CONSTITUTED
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A) OF THE
 STATUTE ENTITLING THE UNION TO RECEIVE ADVANCE NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY
 TO BE PRESENT.  THE GENERAL COUNSEL, IN ESSENCE, ARGUES THAT THE
 MEETINGS WERE FORMAL DISCUSSIONS INVOLVING DISCUSSION OF A GRIEVANCE,
 AND THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT AT ARTICLE 7, SECTION
 H, OR ARTICLE 25, SECTIONS E OR G DID NOT CONSTITUTE A CLEAR AND
 UNMISTAKABLE WAIVER OF THE UNION'S STATUTORY RIGHT TO RECEIVE NOTICE AND
 AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 12, 1979, AND
 JANUARY 17, 1980.  WITH REGARD TO THE WAIVER, THE GENERAL COUNSEL
 CONTENDS THAT SINCE THE AGREEMENT'S EFFECTIVE DATE WAS OCTOBER 21, 1977,
 AND THE STATUTE BECAME EFFECTIVE JANUARY 11, 1979, THE UNION COULD NOT
 BY CONTRACT HAVE RELINQUISHED RIGHTS LATER CREATED BY THE STATUTE.
 
    IT IS THE RESPONDENT'S POSITION THAT IT DID NOT HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO
 AFFORD THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT EITHER THE DECEMBER 12,
 1979, OR THE JANUARY 17, 1980, MEETINGS.  THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THE
 LANGUAGE OF ARTICLE 25, SECTION E, OF THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT PRECLUDED
 INTERVENTION BY THE UNION IN "SELF-PROCESSED" GRIEVANCES EXCEPT AT THE
 TIME OF "ADJUSTMENT" AND THAT THE DENIAL HEREIN OF A GRIEVANCE WAS NOT
 AN "ADJUSTMENT." THE RESPONDENT ARGUES THAT THIS HAS IN FACT BEEN THE
 PRACTICES AND MUTUALLY SANCTIONED COURSE OF CONDUCT BETWEEN THE PARTIES
 SINCE THE INCEPTION OF THE CURRENT AGREEMENT AND AT ALL TIMES PRIOR
 THERETO.
 
    THE RESPONDENT FURTHER ARGUES THAT CONGRESS DID NOT INTEND SECTION
 7114(A)(2)(A) TO GRANT ANY ADDITIONAL RIGHT TO THE UNION NOT PREVIOUSLY
 GRANTED UNDER SECTION 10(E) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491, AS AMENDED
 (ORDER), AS MODIFIED BY SECTION 13 /3/ WITH REGARD TO "SELF-PROCESSED"
 GRIEVANCES.  ACCORDINGLY, RESPONDENT CONTENDS THAT THE NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT WHICH, IN PART, RELIES ON AND RESTATES SECTION 13 LANGUAGE,
 SURVIVED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STATUTE PURSUANT TO SECTION
 7135(A)(1) /4/ AND PRESENTS A CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE WAIVER OF ANY UNION
 RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING THE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE.
 
    THE COMPLAINT ALLEGES THAT THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED THE STATUTE BY
 CONDUCTING FORMAL DISCUSSIONS ON DECEMBER 12, 1979, AND JANUARY 17,
 1980, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE WITH A
 UNIT EMPLOYEE WITHOUT AFFORDING THE UNION THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT.
  SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE STATES THAT AN EXCLUSIVE
 REPRESENTATIVE SHALL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT ANY
 FORMAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN ONE OR MORE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE AGENCY AND
 ONE OR MORE EMPLOYEES IN THE UNIT OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVES CONCERNING
 ANY GRIEVANCE.  IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INSTANT CASE, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS THE MEETINGS OF DECEMBER 12, 1979 AND JANUARY 17, 1980, TO BE
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A).  /5/ IN
 THIS REGARD, THE MEETINGS AT ISSUE INVOLVED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE
 ACTIVITY (THE DISTRICT MANAGER AND FACTFINDER DESIGNATED BY THE AREA
 DIRECTOR, RESPECTIVELY) AND A UNIT EMPLOYEE.  AS TO FORMALITY, THE
 AUTHORITY NOTES SPECIFICALLY THAT THE MEETINGS WERE STRUCTURED IN
 ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE
 PROCEDURE AND THAT RECORDS OF THE MEETINGS WERE MADE AND COPIES GIVEN TO
 KNAUSS.  FURTHER, THE SUBJECT MATTER DISCUSSED AT SUCH MEETINGS
 CONCERNED A GRIEVANCE FILED UNDER THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE BY
 A UNIT EMPLOYEE.  /6/ THUS, THE RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED UNDER SECTION
 7114(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE TO GIVE THE UNION APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND
 THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE MEETINGS IN QUESTION.  THIS IS
 CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 7121(B)(3)(B) OF THE STATUTE
 WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY NEGOTIATED PROCEDURE SHALL--
 
    (B) ASSURE . . . AN EMPLOYEE THE RIGHT TO PRESENT A GRIEVANCE ON THE
 EMPLOYEE'S OWN BEHALF,
 
    AND ASSURE THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT
 DURING THE GRIEVANCE
 
    PROCEEDING(.)
 
    READING SECTIONS 7114(A)(2)(A) AND 7121(B)(3)(B) TOGETHER, IT IS
 CLEAR THAT CONGRESS INTENDED THAT NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
 ASSURE
 THE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE THE RIGHT TO BE PRESENT (REPRESENTED)
 DURING FORMAL DISCUSSIONS OF A GRIEVANCE, SUCH AS THE DISCUSSIONS AT
 ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
 
    THE RESPONDENT ALLEGES, HOWEVER, THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS
 CASE IT HAD NO OBLIGATION TO GIVE THE UNION APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND AN
 OPPORTUNITY TO BE PRESENT AT THE MEETINGS AT ISSUE.  THE RESPONDENT
 BASED THIS ALLEGATION UPON THE LANGUAGE OF THE PARTIES' 1977 NEGOTIATED
 AGREEMENT.
 
    IN THIS REGARD, SECTION 7135(A)(1) OF THE STATUTE /7/ PERMITS THE
 PARTIES TO AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
 STATUTE TO RENEW OR CONTINUE ITS TERMS IF THEY SO DESIRE.  /8/ HOWEVER,
 WHERE EITHER PARTY TO AN EXISTING AGREEMENT OBJECTS TO THE CONTINUATION
 OF PROVISIONS WHICH ARE INCONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
 STATUTE, SUCH OBJECTION REQUIRES THE PARTIES TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATE
 OF THE STATUTE.  /9/ IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, IT IS THE
 OPINION OF THE AUTHORITY THAT THE UNION'S FILING OF AN UNFAIR LABOR
 PRACTICE CHARGE IS, IN EFFECT, AN OBJECTION TO THE CONTINUATION OF THE
 TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH PROVIDED THE UNION AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 PRESENT ONLY AT THE "ADJUSTMENT" OF A GRIEVANCE.  MOREOVER, THERE IS NO
 EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE PARTIES IN THE INSTANT CASE
 MUTUALLY AGREED OR OTHERWISE INTENDED TO RENEW OR CONTINUE THE TERMS OF
 THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE HERE IN ISSUE.
 
    THE RESPONDENT HAS ADVANCED AN ARGUMENT THAT BY AGREEING TO ADOPT THE
 EXACT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 13(A) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 11491 (WHICH PROVIDED
 FOR THE RIGHT OF AN INDIVIDUAL TO "SELF-PROCESS" A GRIEVANCE) INTO THE
 NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT, THE UNION THEREBY WAIVED ITS RIGHTS UNDER SECTION
 10(E) OF THE ORDER TO AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT "FORMAL
 DISCUSSIONS" WHICH OCCUR PURSUANT TO THE NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE
 AND THAT SUCH WAIVER CONTINUED FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE
 STATUTE.  THIS ARGUMENT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED.  A WAIVER OF A RIGHT MUST
 BE CLEAR AND UNMISTAKABLE AND WILL NOT BE FOUND MERELY FROM THE FACT
 THAT AN AGREEMENT OMITS SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO A RIGHT OR THAT A LABOR
 ORGANIZATION HAS FAILED IN NEGOTIATIONS TO OBTAIN PROTECTION WITH
 RESPECT TO CERTAIN OF ITS RIGHTS.  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE, SCOTT
 AIR FORCE BASE, ILLINOIS, 5 FLRA NO. 2(1981).
 
    THUS, IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, THE AUTHORITY FINDS NO
 INDICATION THAT BY MERELY ADOPTING INTO THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT CERTAIN
 LANGUAGE FROM ONE PROVISION OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER, THE UNION WAIVED ANY
 RIGHT WHICH IT MAY HAVE HAD UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ORDER.  NOR IS
 THERE ANY OTHER INDICATION OF AN INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE UNION TO
 WAIVE ANY OF ITS RIGHTS.  IN ANY EVENT, FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF
 THE STATUTE, AS SHOWN SUPRA, THERE IS NO INDICATION OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT
 OF THE PARTIES OR AN INTENTION ON THE PART OF THE UNION TO RENEW OR
 CONTINUE THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT HERE AT ISSUE.  IN FACT, THE UNION
 HAS, IN EFFECT, OBJECTED TO SUCH CONTINUATION.  THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITY
 FINDS, CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT, THAT THE
 RESPONDENT WAS OBLIGATED BY SECTION 7114(A)(2)(A) OF THE STATUTE TO GIVE
 THE UNION NOTICE AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT THE TWO
 MEETINGS IN QUESTION.  /10/
 
    ACCORDINGLY, THE AUTHORITY FINDS THAT BY FAILING TO GIVE THE UNION
 APPROPRIATE NOTICE OF THE MEETINGS IN QUESTION AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE
 REPRESENTED, THE RESPONDENT VIOLATED SECTION 7116(A)(1), AND (8) OF THE
 STATUTE.  /11/
 
                                   ORDER
 
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 2423.29 OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE
 FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY AND SECTION 7118 OF THE STATUTE, THE
 AUTHORITY HEREBY ORDERS THAT THE OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS, FIELD
 OPERATIONS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SAN FRANCISCO REGION SHALL:
 
    1.  CEASE AND DESIST FROM:
 
    (A) FAILING TO GIVE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES,
 AFL-CIO, APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT
 FORMAL DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT AND
 REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ACTIVITY CONCERNING GRIEVANCES.
 
    (B) IN ANY LIKE OR RELATED MANNER, INTERFERING WITH, RESTRAINING, OR
 COERCING ANY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF RIGHTS ASSURED BY THE FEDERAL
 SERVICE LABOR-MANAGEMENT RELATIONS STATUTE.
 
    2.  TAKE THE FOLLOWING AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN ORDER TO EFFECTUATE THE
 PURPOSES AND POLICIES OF THE STATUTE:
 
    (A) GIVE THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO,
 APPROPRIATE NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE REPRESENTED AT FORMAL
 DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYEES IN THE BARGAINING UNIT AND REPRESENTATIVES
 OF THE ACTIVITY CONCERNING GRIEVANCES.
 
    (B) POST AT ALL FACILITIES OF THE OFFICE OF PROGRAM OPERATIONS, FIELD
 OPERATIONS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, SAN FRANCISCO REGION, COPIES
 OF THE ATTACHED NOTICE ON FORMS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE FEDERAL LABOR
 RELATIONS AUTHORITY.  UPON RECEIPT OF SUCH FORMS THEY SHALL BE SIGNED BY
 THE ASSISTANT REGIONAL COMMISSIONER AND SHALL BE POSTED AND MAINTAINED
 BY HER FOR 60 CONSECUTIVE DAYS THEREAFTER, IN CONSPICUOUS PLACES,
 INCLUDING ALL BULLETIN BOARDS AND OTHER PLACES WHERE